1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

There has been so much information and disinformation about the case, that it will certainly be a future case-study in the most diverse of subjects. Journalism and Investigative Sciences, upfront, but Psychology and Politics, are other that occur to me at the moment. On the latter, I would even go as far as to think that it will be studied under the “State-Terrorism” perspective. But, this is the sole opinion of the author.

But all these constructs, although mental, are not made out-of-the-blue, be in whichever side of the board each one stands at. Yes, they’re biased by a mixture of background, education and opinion on the subject at stake, but always, always based on information assumed taken for fact. By interlinking what we know, or think we know, we, humans, are able to deduce what, in each one’s opinion, has happened.

The more solid are the events from which we construct these “facts”, the more real, or truthful, is the deduction.

So, through common sense and logic, events can be deduced as to how, when, who and why they happened, and be assumed as fact. Although, de facto, unproven as such.

Thus the creation of “reasonable” doubt, a frontier that, once overcome or conquered, makes an event become, legally, fact. The only problem here is how far each of us wishes to stretch, or shorten, the “reason” within “reasonable”.

The desperate need to insert a doubt about a specific something attempting, by force, just to avoid having it had considered real is, by its own action, so unreasonable that it becomes, ironically, one of the principal reasons for it to be considered proved.

Everything is linked to everything. Much more relevant than the actual lie is the reason why the liar is lying.

That alone usually encapsulates precious truth.

The denial, based only on fortuity, of the existing forensic evidence, only reinforces the belief that they are true and do provide relevant evidence.

On the other hand, events that are presented with such a degree of absurdity and void of logic and common sense show, all by themselves, where reason is denied. In the Maddie case, the abductor theory is so completely illogic and self-contradictory that denying its truthfulness is a natural human reaction. One has to force oneself, or be forced, to believe in it.

The repeated claim, so ill-dramatized, by Gerry and Kate of their innocence, only makes it come back to them as it denotes lack of coherence and natural conviction and reiterates, significantly, the certainty we all have that they are guilty.

I’ve said it before, and will repeat it as many times as required, that it can be determined, within a very reasonable “reasonable doubt” that Maddie is dead; that those nearest to her were involved directly in her death and that all of the of the Tapas group were involved, in some way or another in the obstruction of justice and in the concealment of her body with whatever evidence it might of upheld.

And when I say “a very reasonable “reasonable doubt””, let there be no misunderstanding that I clearly mean that in any given similar circumstances, it would be more than enough to guarantee a conviction of any common British citizen in any Court of Law in the United Kingdom.

Only intentionally turning one’s own head the opposite way can one pretend not to see the evidence that proves the McCann’s guilt. It’s so blatant that denying it can only be the result of self-inflicted blindness.

In the UK and as of May 2007 onwards there seems to have been a sudden surge in the number of vision-impaired people. A condition that seems to affects only people in the judicial, law-enforcement and media areas of British society.

Although these people can read, write and even drive, on the McCann issue they wouldn’t be able to see the lights on a billboard whilst standing in the middle of NY Times Square at night. Totally, completely and utterly blind.

But this highly contagious disease has also spread to Portugal, affecting the exact same type of people. Undoubtedly, one very, very selective virus.

I’m not a doctor, but if I were the one who happened to discover the responsible micro-organism, I would name it the Turn-a-Blind Eye to Just Certain Judicial Processes Virus or TaBEtJCPJ Virus. A rather complex name for virus that causes such an easy disease to diagnose. As it has 9 letters, I would even abbreviate it to T9. A vision impairing virus that affects, selectively, VIP’s.

If fiction were reality, I would even say that we were before the white blindness that José Saramago so beautifully wrote about, where people who have completely normal and healthy eyes are blind, for no known physical reason.

One woman, one woman alone, did keep her eyesight throughout the book. Don’t remember her name or that she even had one, but I’ll call her Hope.

"...all that is known about the Maddie case is what each one of us constructs to what may have happened on that fateful May 3rd afternoon."

Not quite all, Textusa, not quite all.

But who "constructs", and why should it matter what any one individual, or a million individuals, constructs as to what may have happened on May 3rd, 2007?

What matters is that the McCanns are brought to justice - British or Portuguese - for abandoning their child to whatever fate became her.

What matters is that the McCanns are brought to justice on charges relating to the death of their daughter and the manner of her disposal.

What matters is that the McCanns are brought to justice for the ongoing fraud that is the FindMadeleine fund.

We may all hold our private opinions, each of us, part of this Great Majority - until that time that we can bring Justice herself to an opinion. Justice, so far, seems disinclined to interest herself in the fate of Madeleine McCann.

Thank you for your excellent article Textusa. I do agree with you logic points to one conclusion. I've repeated ad nauseam the blatant interference that took place in this case. The following, among other things, has bothered me: There was an enquiry into how the press handled the Madeleine case. During this enquiry, editors of major newspapers in Britain supposedly revealed that they presented their articles to the McCanns PR firm for review before being published. What kills me is that nobody batted an eyelash, no one questioned the ethics of such behaviour, either this is normal in Britain or there are a lot of people, excuse my English, with no balls.